Let me reiterate. As I have shown with several example, the twisting of the context and textual sense of the Hebrew Scriptures was a preparation for the real aim of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which was to demonstrate the ascendancy of Pauline-Gentile Christianity over Judaism. The writer was intent on keeping the converts won over to him [success of a personal agenda at the expense of correct interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures to a people unfamiliar with the Hebrew Scriptures] as well as won over to the new religion he spread at all costs.

Answer for yourself: How better way to win a “name” for yourself which one could not get through the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem, regardless of the visions you attest you had?

Paul was determined to not lose ground or prestige against any incursions by the Jewish competition. He began to build his case with a contrast between Moses and Jesus. The writer described Moses as a faithful servant in God's house and Jesus as the faithful son over God's house (3:5-6). The people were warned against giving up their belief in the “Pauline Jesus” by a long excerpt from Psalm 95:7-11 stated as follows in Heb. 3:7-11:

Today if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion During the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried Me And for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation. And I said, “Their hearts are always going. astray And they have not known my ways.: So I declared an oath in my anger they shall not enter into my rest.

The apostle-author interpreted this passage as a warning to the people against hardening their hearts and not believing in Paul’s Jesus. Paul would have his readers understand that refusal of his Jesus and his unique message [faith in this non-Jewish Jesus without obedient works for acceptance by God] would be considered apostasy by God and would bring upon those who reject his [Paul’s Jesus] worse suffering than the Israelites endured because of their lack of faith.

However, the original verses in the psalm refer to incidents recorded in the Pentateuch and are taken out of context by the writer again. They are a reminder and an admonition to Israel against disobedience to God such as rebellion against God's chosen leader, Moses, regression to idolatry, and a lack of faith in God's ability to provide water for them.

The original context is “not hearing or heeding God’s voice” and not “Paul’s voice.”

The choice for the Jew today, as well as in the latter first century, is easy. They must obey the God who spoke to them at Sinai and refuse “another gospel,” even if threatened by Paul.

The irony to the reasoning of Paul escapes the casual reader of the Bible:

The Israelites were punished for deviating from Mosaic Laws, commandments, and injunctions, not for returning to them. For them to accept faith without obedience would only bring upon them the judgments of old.

Answer for yourself: Can you now better understand why the Jews today, as well as in the early centuries could not accept Pauline Christianity; a Christianity that presented “faith in a person ‘alone’ without obedience to the Law and commandments for acceptance before God?”

Answer for yourself: Please pay attention to this next question. Was it ignorance of Hebrew Scripture [you would think this impossible for a Jew who at the age of 12 had the whole 5 Books of Moses memorized] or cynicism that compelled the writer to use as a proof text an excerpt relating to conformity to the very Law he wanted his readers to shun?

Answer for yourself: Would you expect miss-application of Scripture from a Jew who grew up with the Hebrew Scriptures who would know other Jews would catch his error, or a non-Jew somewhat unfamiliar with the texts he was working with?

He even quoted a passage referring to chastisement for not following the commandments of the Law.

The last thought in the above excerpt deals with entering God’s rest. The writer interpreted this variously as Sabbath rest or rest in a heavenly sanctuary for believers in Yeshua [not those who believe in God and obey His Word]..

Consistent with the reference in the psalm to the wandering in the wilderness, the psalmist associated God's rest with entrance into the Promised Land. After forty years of roaming in Sinai, the Israelites would naturally consider an end to their wandering as a rest. Besides they had the Sabbath throughout their travels. Sabbath rest was proclaimed in the Ten Commandments which the Israelites received at the outset of their journey. The promise of a final celestial rest did not preclude the desire and hope for rest and peace in one's mortal existence. This was the promise in the Torah to Israel for obedience unto God and His Word [not belief in a man without obedience]. According to the story in the Torah, the generation of the desert did not have respite or rest in its own land due to its violations of the covenant with God.

What you must see as ludicrous is that the Hebrews epistle writer was urging on his readers even further breach of that covenant.

Answer for yourself: Is it any wonder why the Jewish people reject Christianity today, as well as in the early centuries, when they are told to reject openly what they were judged by God for not observing faithfully before [failure to obey the commandments of God]?

Statements made to various heroes--Abraham, Moses, David, or others -- were again incorrectly presented as if God had said them to Yeshua. He did not, or at least the Bible does not record for us He did.

Psalm 110:4 is a case in point. The author of Hebrews liked this verse and cited it three times in 5:6, 7:17, and 7:21. It is a declaration to David defining his status, viz.:

This phrase was proof to our author that Yeshua was designated by God to be high priest just like Melchizedek (5:10). The rest of his thesis was built on this assumption. Let us not forget that "Melchizedek" was used by Gnostics for their pattern and examples for a non-Torah message. The word 'forever' meant to the apostle that Yeshua lived forever because of his resurrection, and therefore, had a permanent priesthood. Since Yeshua became a priest through God's oath, his position was superior to that of Moses who had not acceded to the priesthood (yet Moses was a Levi and brought sacrifices for a short time). Furthermore, Jesus could now make atonement (save) for those who come to God through him (Gentiles).

Answer for yourself: Referring back to atonement and the miss-quotations by Paul which confused the whole idea of Biblical atonement, can you now be open enough to consider the possibility that we are “saved” by Yeshua, not by his death to remove a non-existent curse as I have shown you did not exit except in the mind of Paul, but rather, his death [called “blood” in the New Testament] and resurrection served as a catalyst to break out from a Gentile-hating Judaism in the first century a small group of men, who were so moved by the resurrection of Yeshua, as to follow him and his word to “go into all the world ….and teach them [Gentiles] to observe [obey the Torah/Law/commandments as the fruit of their faith in the One God] those things commanded by Jesus?

Dear brother and sisters, we have a been given a way that brings you and me to God, not through conversion to Judaism, but through repentance and obedience to the message followed by every Jew; a message, that when obeyed, brings “right-standing” before God. Such a message is obedience to the commandments of God as the fruit of our faith in God. Had it not been for Yeshua and his death and presumed resurrection then there would have been no outreach to the Gentile world where the Laws and Covenant of Noah was taken to the world and we would not know God as we do today, unless a Jew knocked on your door to reveal the God of Israel to you.

Answer for yourself: Has any Jew knocked on you door lately to teach you about God?

Guess what? They were not in the first century either. The Jewish people would be judged for such ambivalence and neglect in 70 C.E. by the destruction of the Temple, for they, like us, often fail to obey the Second Tablet of the Law, thus bringing atonement for our sins, which is coupled with the atonement provided for the sins of the First Tablet of the Law at the end of our life in our death. The Rabbis teach that some sins cannot be atoned for in this life and the soul that sins shall die and in our death we atone for the sins of the First Tablet of the Law. These are sins between man and God and involve the gamut of idolatry to blasphemy of God's Name. In the New Testament this is referred to as the unforgivable sin (that is as long as we live and until we die).

For the writer of Hebrews Jesus was seen as their High Priest; he was believed to be interceding for his followers. Understand this is allegorical at best. Since Yeshua has an eternal priesthood promised by God, according to the writer of Hebrews, and Moses did not, Yeshua' ministry was superior to that of Moses in the eyes of this writer. But when the writer of Hebrews makes his final implication of his reasoning from the above-quoted verse that the new priesthood of Yeshua required a new covenant that make the former covenant invalid he makes a fatal mistake, for as I have shown you previously the “new covenant” is a “renewed, repaired, and restored” covenant, and not a replaced one. The word for "new" in Hebrews had a completely different meaning from the word "new" as used in the original passage from Jeremiah 31!

In 2 Samuel 6:14,17 and 8:18 David and his sons assumed priestly garb and duties. In the aforementioned verses the status of David and his sons was confirmed as priest-kings although they were not priests on the same level as Aaron and his descendants. The Davidic kings did not acquire the powers of the priests such as making sacrifices and offerings for the nation; the priests performed these duties. Furthermore, the Aaronic priesthood was sanctioned by God to be eternal (Ex. 40:15) and indeed, has continued on to this day, albeit without Temple or sacrifices.

In this way, the perpetuity of the priesthood for the Jews was guaranteed by God. Moses' greatness was in his leadership, organization, and inspiration of his people. He was not considered deficient because he was not a member of the priestly class nor was he ever in competition with a deity for he was not considered divine. Neither he nor any man was to be worshipped. As for Yeshua, he was never a priest or a king during his earthly ministry. . Although life eternal had been vouched for him, he did die as did Moses, but was believed to be resurrected. That’s the difference to Yeshua's earliest of believers! The author of Hebrews whole theory of Yeshua's priesthood is based on an false assumption on his part that the Old Covenant was replaced by a New Covenant with a new Priesthood which I have already shown you to be nonsense in prior articles on this subject. A simple Hebrew word study will prove the writer of Hebrews to be wrong and reveal his purposeful misquotation of the Jewish Scriptures! I challenge you to look up in Jer. 31:31 the Hebrew word for “new” and then transpose its meaning over the Greek meaning or English meaning for “new” when quoted in Hebrews.

Answer for yourself: Regardless of what the Greek or English word for “new” means in Hebrews, should it not carry with it the same meaning as the original passage in Hebrew from which is was taken and that was “renewed, repaired, reaffirmed”?

Answer for yourself: What does the author of the Book of Hebrews fail to understand about Yeshua’s Priesthood that any Jew would know since a child (remember I told you it was Hellenistic/Greek in production)?

Simply that all covenants of God are consecutive and cumulative. In other words just because God made a covenant with Noah He did not cancel the covenant He made with Adam. Just because God made a covenant with Israel through Moses He does not discard and annul the prior covenants made with Adam and Noah, etc.

Answer for yourself: Since God is not making a “new” covenant to replace older covenants, how do we deduce as the writer of Hebrews would have us believe that God has to make a “new” covenant to replace the “old covenant” which has the Aaronic Priesthood when the covenant with Noah ALREADY contained the Priesthood of Melchizedek?

Answer for yourself: Can you now better understand and see that God did not desire a “new” anything since the existing covenant with Noah (quoted as applying to Gentiles in Acts 15 by Yeshua’ church) contains an already existing Melchizedek Priesthood?

Answer for yourself: Can you now better understand the use of “renewed, restored, repaired” instead of “replaced” as referring not only to covenants but to the Melchizedek Priesthood as well since is had been vacant since Noah’s time? WOW…that is quite a revelation!

Answer for yourself: What are the functions of a Priesthood?

Namely to lead people to God, and has not the ministry of Yeshua and his followers, and the Great Commission which was fueled by his death and resurrection, been responsible for taking God, Torah, and Israel to the heathen Gentile nations of the world, where almost everywhere today monotheism is the foundation of all manifestations of Gentile religions in the world?

Then without a doubt, Yeshua had and is functioning as a mediator (allegorically) to get pagan Gentiles to God, who according to Ephesians 2:11 they are born “Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision, in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Messiah (to lead you to God), being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”

For such a gift we have an eternal debt to Yeshua and we rightfully understand the religion he intended we inherit, have faith in, and obey.